“Infallibility”, like so many concepts we use to describe and organize our world, is undeniably absolute.  There can be no pragmatic, real-world application of such an idea.  Every real world application of the concept of infallibility will always result in an obvious, empirical limitation of the idea.  Therefore, infallibility either remains a function of the theoretical, and thus can only be applied, somewhat…hmm, allegorically/symbolically/metaphorically in the tangible world we occupy; or, it becomes a contradiction in terms.  For there is no such rational thing as limited or contextual infallibility. 

Put simply, the definition of “infallible”is: unable to err.  This definition is cutely qualified in the dictionary, however, like I said, any attempt to qualify what cannot, by definition, be qualified makes it a logical contradiction.  If you must qualify infallible-ness, it is no longer infallible.  By definition.  If it must contextualized for it to “not err”, then the implicit logical assumption is that outside of that context, “erring” is not only possible, but inevitable.  If it is not infallible everywhere and everywhen, regardless of context, then it is not “incapable of erring”.  It is not infallible.  For infallibility cannot be both infallible and NOT infallible at the same time.

At this point, referring to anyTHING that we observe as a manifestation of our literal world and reality as infallible should seem to run contrary to reason; and so it is with some consternation that I look around and see that almost every statement of faith in every protestant church in America claims that the bible is “infallible”.  The human destruction which can and is wrought by such egregiously false claims should be apparent by now in our history as the human race at least, and yet, the dots remain unconnected.  People still seem vexed when logically impossible ideas, instead of bringing peace and order, bring chaos and human destruction, both physical and psychological.  But still more mystifying is that the biblical notion of reaping what you sow is never considered as the logical source of the fallout.  My assumption is that if you really do consider the bible infallible, then the most interpretively obvious points should be on deck at all times.  If you preach logical nonsense and substitute reason for metaphysical and doctrinal madness, you get hurt human beings. See?  Sowing and reaping.

Dear Calvinists:  It isn’t that hard.

But it is…really, because conceding that there is actually truth, and this truth is a function of MAN’S existential reality, and thus men must possess the capacity to apprehend it, flies in the face of their need for gnostic moral relativity to maintain power and the critical assumption that the reformed authority’s capricious whims are in fact objective GOOD.  Their doctrines don’t make sense only TO YOU.  IF you were THEM, they would make perfect sense.  So,you see, objective truth is meaningless.  Truth is whatever they say it is because THEY are truth. Period.  So if what they teach brings destruction to you, then obviously you are the problem.  You have reaped it because you are NOT them.

And here is how the bible is used in service to their tyranny:

As an obvious fact, if the bible is “infallible”, then it must be “contextually infallible” only, thus contradicting its own infallibility.  Case in point:  If you try replacing your hammer with your bible (no, Calvinists, they really aren’t the same thing) and then go try to build a deck, you will quickly realize just how contextual the bible’s “infallibility” is.  So, only two logical assumptions from this are to be found.

One:  The bible is really NOT infallible, because the fact that it makes an “errant’ hammer is proof that it certainly, when used as such, is significantly wanting.

Two:  The fault is not the bible’s, because it cannot err.  Ergo, the problem is the nails, or the boards you are using, or you (note:  it’s ALWAYS you at the end of the day…you are what’s wrong), or the blueprints, or the permits, or the laws of physics, etc., etc.    The fact that the bible is about as inerrant a hammer as I am a professional basketball player (or a basketball player) is beside the point.  If the bible is really infallible, then at no time can the bible be at fault for failing to meet a standard.  Any standard.   It IS the standard.  Thus, any fault must ALWAYS lay outside it.  If it cannot fly to the moon, the fault is the moon’s.  If it cannot climb Mt. Kilimanjaro, the fault is Mt. Kilimanjaro’s.  If it cannot run the forty yard dash in under five seconds, the dash is flawed, or time, space, length, distance…but never the bible.  By definition, you see, it is infallible.  It is incapable of erring.  And there is NO way that “incapable of erring” can be qualified.

But the worst is none of those examples.  The worst is this:  Who gets to decide what infallibility looks like, then, when applied in our reality?  The answer would seem to be no one, but we ex-Calvinist bobble-heads know that this is not really true, don’t we?  Because the bible is infallible, there can be NO human interpretation of it in any way that can possibly be veracious.  Why?  Because humans are, in every Christian tradition, fallible by nature.  They are fallible because they are contextual; they are limited; they are NOT the sum of their own truth.  Thus there is no way the fallible can ever accurately understand or apply what is infallible because what is infallible is wholly outside of the human context.

So, I ask again:  who gets to decide?

Why, your philosopher-kings, in your local neo-Calvinist church who are carefully and divinely standing in the stead.  Those “leaders” of yours, who are not you, and whom God has somehow, indescribably given the ability to transcend human flawed, fallible, limited existence.  That’s who.

And we wonder why there is destruction in Christendom.

Reaping and sowing, people.  Reaping and sowing.